Solar cheaper than nuclear

Koning Betweter wrote in news:2010081203281869917-Koning@Stumpernl:

that's one way;lower your lifestyle,live as people did in the 19th century. Or,you could go modern,build nuclear plants and have safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades before refueling,and have a better lifestyle. Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy.

people insist on growing huge plots of stuff like rice and cotton.

Probably more often, but who knows? Our climate is an enormously complex chaotic system with unknown inputs and dynamics. Nobody can usefully model a thing like that.

It's more likely (but really unknowable) that more CO2 will increase evaporation, which has got to come down as precipitation. And more CO2 will definitely make plants happier and, as you have pointed out, more water-efficient. Some recent studies suggest that plants and animals can adapt very quickly (which only makes sense) and epigenics is a real part of that.

We were, in the big picture, seriously running out of CO2. Too much has been sequestered over the last few billion years. It's our job, as useful organisms, to dig some up and make it available to the biosphere.

BP did its small share to help. What's cool is that the Gulf is full of bacteria that love hydrocarbons and gobble them up. I bet they have a whopping shrimp and fish season next year.

But where are the zillions of killer hurricanes that the AGW bunnies predicted?

John

I think it is easy to reduce electricity.

1. You can use a wind-up radio for hearing the news.
2. you can make any cream by hand instead of a machine.
3. you can warm your room by burning wood or gas, instead of electricity.
4. you may use Led-lights, a laptop (not a desktop)
5. make coffee on a fire!!!
6. Don't warm other rooms as the one where you are most of the time, You might use better blankets, so you don't need to warm the bedroom.

If you use the same fire for warming your house, as making coffee/tea/chocolate and cooking meals, You reduce a lot of energy too.

And yes, I know it is partially using other energy, not always reducing energy. If I burn my garbage, it will warm my room for a little bit.

I absolutely think I'm not primitive, I'm just efficient and have fun with saving energy and money. It's also better for our environment.

Very interesting thought. But I guess that is just the reason we are here. With higher concentration CO2, we (and many other species) didn't got here.

Let's give them a reward! ;-D

If you were a shrimp, would you have the same thoughts?

ng@Stumpernl:

y.

If it's a 19th century lifestyle that's wanted, remember the air and water pollution that goes along with it.

So is a clean environment.

Yup. Pull into a BP station whenever you can.

Don't shrimp eat bacteria, or whatever intermediates eat bacteria?

I grew up in southern Louisiana. Critters down there will eat anything, usually with Tabasco.

John

You tell us.

Always good to hear that from somebody else.

Koning Betweter wrote in news:20100812172120803-Koning@Stumpernl:

you evidently have not actually used one of those.... "easy" is not a word I'd use WRT cranking on a wind-up radio or any other small "wind-up" appliance.

As I said,return to a 19th century lifestyle. Not most people's idea of "better".

Burning gas,wood and coal is good for our environment? It wasn't "good" for it even back in the 19th century.

go modern,build nuclear plants and have safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades before refueling,and have a REAL "better lifestyle". Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy.

Burning gas and wood isn't as bad as burning coal. I did not mention coal. Besides, did you see pictures of winning uranium? That's not clean either, the same as with winning gas or oil.

I've been in an Uranium-mine in france about 20 years ago, there was very dirty unhealthy air, low radioactivity and a lot of damage to the nature. The mine is closed now, but the environment is still damaged, I heard.

If you know how much it cost to get a nuclear plant running and how much it cost to keep the radioactive garbage save for a few hundred, no a few thousand years, you wouldn't be a fan of nuclear plants.

I believe in reducing and durability, but we have to deal with possibilities. So I use as much as possible new (nature-friendly) generators, recycle as much as I can. I don't have a car, just a bicycle, and so on.

I know somebody who hung his bed to the ceiling. Used a stairway to get into his bed. While he is sleeping his bed turns a dynamo and fills a battery. The next morning he put on the lights. The next evening he pulls up his bed again, and so on.

We are just experimenting to make a smaller footprint. Unfortunately, I'm to busy at the internet yet, so my computer (which is an old desktop) is making my footprint bigger. At the moment I don't have the money, space and knowledge to be totally independent, but I hope to generate that state in the future.

Aren't they doing just that in Japan and France, even as we speak?

Thanks, Rich

Could coal miners be retrained to build and operate nuclear plants?

Thanks, Rich

Please cite some evidence of this claim. There's a storage place - an abandoned salt mine 2,000 feet deep, somewhere under New Mexico, where they've been storing crap since the freakin' Manhattan Project!

And why not ask the US Navy what they're doing with the spent fuel from their nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines that are going around saber-rattling all over the world? What has the US Government done about the waste products from production of thousands of bombs?

When you can, and/or are willing, to answer these questions, or even research them, then let's have a discussion about the feasibility of peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Thanks, Rich

Not the whole scientific establishment - just those who have joined the cult of warmingism and abandoned actual science.

Cheers! Rich

Sounds like a tall story to me. He can't get more energy out of having the bed and himself descend that he put into it by pulling the bed up and the climbing up himself.

Say a bed weights 100kg, an he weighs 75kg, and that the bed is raised by 2 metres. Total energy 3430 Joules, or about 1 Watt-hour. Won't get much lighting out of that.

In any case, he'd have to eat marginally more food to account for the exercise, and that's a very inefficient way of turning food into electrical energy.

Sylvia.

True, it was just having some fun, a kind of creative art. But he can light his house for almost half an hour. BTW: the bed is for 2 persons and there is some mechanism which turns up very fast, but turns down for about 7 hours. Burning a candle give the same amount of light.

You can't deny global warming, you can say it's natural or something, but denying global warming is rediculus! Never seen the pictures of melting gletgers? Have you seen the pictures of the North pole over the last few decades?

Cheers!

As long as he has no more than a single 2 watt bulb.

They would get a lot less exposure to radiation if they could.

tm

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---